review-code

review-code is a command for Claude Code from manishiitg/coding-agent-loop. It costs 0 tokens per session (572 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A code-review command that examines saved scripts against their current step goals, input and output agreements, and retained behaviour. It returns suggested improvements without changing the files.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review workflow scripts, check whether their contracts still hold, and propose architectural improvements.
Why use it?
It helps find design and architecture mismatches before changes are applied.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: a Claude Code command (commands/*.md).

Good fit Use it to review workflow scripts, check whether their contracts still hold, and propose architectural improvements.

Compare 6 commands from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/manishiitg/coding-agent-loop/review-code
Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/manishiitg/coding-agent-loop

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for review-code

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/manishiitg/coding-agent-loop/review-code/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/manishiitg/coding-agent-loop/review-code)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/manishiitg/coding-agent-loop/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/manishiitg/coding-agent-loop/review-code/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

agentmods 80×15 button for review-code

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/manishiitg/coding-agent-loop/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/manishiitg/coding-agent-loop/review-code.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 0 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 572 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00000 $0.00572
Opus 5.5 $0.00000 $0.00229
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00000 $0.00114
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00057

Measured 26d ago against content hash 0c92f6404bd3, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

review-code scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 26d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

agent_go/internal/agentworksproduct/commands/review-code.md · 16 lines

What it actually says

Call get_workflow_command_guidance(kind="design-plan", focus="Architecture focus: inspect saved scripts against their current step objectives, input/output contracts, and relevant retained behavior. Propose improvements without applying them.

Load and apply read_skill(skills=[{"name":"builder-reference","path":"references/code-authoring.md"}]), then load and apply read_skill(skills=[{"name":"builder-reference","path":"references/scripted.md"}]) as review references; their authoring and execution instructions do not grant mutation or producing-run authority in this review.

Check source-layout migration consistency: resolve canonical code paths from workflow.json.code_layout_version. Version 1 uses code//main.py directly and shared imports rooted at WORKFLOW_CODE_ROOT, without execution-copy or copy-back assumptions. Absent/zero uses the supported legacy learnings//main.py layout. Inspect relevant active code, imports, and plan references for missing canonical files or stale layout assumptions; historical retained copies and an intentionally legacy layout are not defects. Do not migrate implicitly or infer the version from folder existence.

For a legacy scripted workflow, assess and normally propose migration to code/ using the Deliberate migration to code/ section of code-authoring.md. Include the complete source/helper/metadata scope, supported manifest-switch mechanism or its absence, rollback boundary, and focused runtime tests. Treat this as a maintenance improvement, not a bug; reuse existing proposals and respect explicit deferrals. If migration and testing are already authorized, preserve that scope for the implementation handoff rather than asking again. This review remains read-only.

For parameterized scripts, compare the declared script_parameters keys, types, required values, defaults, and enums with main.py parsing of STEP_PARAMS_JSON and its actual use of those values. Inspect relevant callers: execute_step supplies script_parameters; call_scripted_sub_agent supplies parameters. Check optional-value handling, hardcoded per-call values, undeclared inputs, and conflicting CLI/free-form parameter paths. Keep context_dependencies as positional sys.argv inputs, workflow configuration in VAR_*, and secrets out of the public parameter object. Parameterization is optional; recommend it only when repeated code rewriting or duplicated scripts shows a useful need.

Use current source and relevant retained evidence; do not launch a producing run merely to complete this review. Report material code/contract drift; skip unrelated operations checks and harmless recovered tool failures. Persist findings for a later /pulse-fixer; do not apply changes in this review.

{{context}}") and follow the returned instructions verbatim. Pass run_folder as the workflow's currently selected run folder when one is selected; otherwise omit it. Treat focus as the conversation/request context that appeared before the slash command, including the user's recent constraints and intent. The tool returns the canonical guided-flow text for this command — do not paraphrase or skip its steps.

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 26d ago First seen · 16 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 0c92f6404bd3

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review-code is a command published in the GitHub repository manishiitg/coding-agent-loop (13 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 572 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-21.